ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2014
Evaluating cardiovascular safety of novel therapeutic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin+dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to metformin+sulfonylureas for treatment of type 2 diabetes.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Calcium signalling and ER stress in insulin resistance and atherosclerosis.Journal of internal medicine · 2016Review
- Association between Diabetes and Risk of Aortic Dissection: A Case-Control Study in a Chinese Population.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes increases the risk of developing cardiovascular (CV) complications such as myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, and CV-associated mortality. Strict glycemic control in diabetics has shown improvement in microvascular complications related to diabetes but has been unable to demonstrate major effects on macrovascular complications including myocardial infarction and stroke. Conventional therapies for diabetes that include insulin, metformin, sulfonylureas (SU), and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors have limited and/or controversial data on CV safety based on observational studies not designed or powered to assess CV safety of these medications. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revised regulations for the approval of medications for type 2 diabetes by requiring that enough CV events are accrued prior to approval to rule out an upper 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) for HR of 1.8 for CV events, followed by ruling out an upper 95 % CI for HR of 1.3 in the post-approval period. To date, novel diabetes therapies including peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) gamma agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP 1) analogs, and sodium-glucose transporter-2 (SGL2) inhibitors have been evaluated in CV safety trials. Results from the first major CV outcome studies in type 2 diabetes, SAVOR-TIMI 53 and EXAMINE, have shown that neither saxagliptin nor alogliptin had increases in major CV events relative to placebo in high-risk patients. Ongoing and future trials will elucidate the CV safety for other DPP-4 inhibitors compared to SUs and the GLP-1 agonists versus placebo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.